Apologists wasting their talent

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Beckwith's argument does not trade on materialism, eternity, or anything other than whether there exists morally proper functions for human faculties. This requires by an entity necessary and sufficient for creating such purposes (i.e. God.)

[_Coggins7]

This does not explain why infinity is the only acceptable backdrop to measure meaning at all. You have a tendency to simply reassert your original assertion when asked to defend it.

How does this not explain, in basic terms, your question?

What aspects of it do you find problematic?

What is it precisely that you want answered?

[_beastie]

How does this not explain, in basic terms, your question?

What aspects of it do you find problematic?

What is it precisely that you want answered?

You're not actually DEFENDING anything, just restating it. In fact, it seems to me that your statement could actually be used to assert the exact opposite of what you currently insist. Time (death) created a boundary to meaning, so meaning should be judged within that boundary.

Anyway, as I explained on the previous nihilistic thread, the LDS paradigm doesn't fare any better when one insists that eternity is the only valid backdrop for measurement. When there are infinite gods, infinite worlds, infinite spirit children, infinite reproduction, In other words - an infinite number of individuals who can, in fact, become infinite gods - then, within that framework of infinity, whether or not YOU become a "god", or whether or not "Heavenly Father" (the only god we have anything to do with) ever became a god and spawned all his particular spirit children, is absolutely irrelevant. I mean, really, who cares if one particular individual becomes "god" when there's an infinity of gods to begin with?

[_The Dude]

Light:

Dawkins' concern is that Wise has been taught to follow a rigid dogma instead of using his mind to learn and explore the things it could have.

Dawkins' world view says that living creatures evolved by slow, gradual steps and the appearance of design is an illusion.

You still haven't explained to me how these two things are necessarily contradictory. Beckwith's argument against Dawkins depends on there being a contradiction, but I don't see one.

[_The Dude]

Light:

Dawkins' concern is that Wise has been taught to follow a rigid dogma instead of using his mind to learn and explore the things it could have.

Dawkins' world view says that living creatures evolved by slow, gradual steps and the appearance of design is an illusion.

You still haven't explained to me how these two things are necessarily contradictory. Beckwith's argument against Dawkins depends on there being a contradiction, but I don't see one.

Bumping for "A Light in the Darkness".


Please explain the contradiction between Dawkins' concern and his world view. You claim he is irrational for holding these two beliefs.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Please explain the contradiction between Dawkins' concern and his world view. You claim he is irrational for holding these two beliefs.

What is problematic for Dawkins isn't the mere fact that he is concerned. He is free to feel however he wants to feel. The problem is that he uses Kurt Wise as an example of why one is justified (why one ought to) oppose religion. This is what is contradictory to his particular atheistic belief. As for why, Beckwith already detailed the argument. I don't see why repeating it again will gain any ground.

[_guy sajer]

Please explain the contradiction between Dawkins' concern and his world view. You claim he is irrational for holding these two beliefs.

What is problematic for Dawkins isn't the mere fact that he is concerned. He is free to feel however he wants to feel. The problem is that he uses Kurt Wise as an example of why one is justified (why one ought to) oppose religion. This is what is contradictory to his particular atheistic belief. As for why, Beckwith already detailed the argument. I don't see why repeating it again will gain any ground.

Key to understanding ALitD's argument is that it assumes that Dawkins subscribes to Beckwith's and ALitD's particular theoretical argument; one (if my memory serves me), we've hashed out here and with which precious few of us agree.

But, if Dawkin's construes issues of morality differently than Beckwith and ALitD, then his view may very well be rational, which I presume he does.

To make his argument, he requires agreement on the premises. Since we don't agree on the premises, he can't make his argument, and I think this is where the hangup is. But then I'm working off memory here.

I see no reason why, as I understand Dawkins, and as I think he understands human morality (an issue he covers in his book), that his use of Kurt Wise as an example is irrational in any sense. Rather, it strikes me as fully consistent with Dawkins' world view, if not with ALitD's.

[_beastie]

What is problematic for Dawkins isn't the mere fact that he is concerned. He is free to feel however he wants to feel. The problem is that he uses Kurt Wise as an example of why one is justified (why one ought to) oppose religion. This is what is contradictory to his particular atheistic belief. As for why, Beckwith already detailed the argument. I don't see why repeating it again will gain any ground.

Then once again I'm left wondering why you chose this citation to support your assertion that atheists have no firm ground upon which to make an assertion such as "apologists are wasting their talents".

The last time I pointed out that you were using a problematic citation to make your point, you accused me of conflating issues. Yet you keep returning to this point - "the problem is that he uses Kurt Wise as an example of why one is justified (why one ought to) oppose religion". It is hardly a peripheral issue to your point. It seems to me that you are the one conflating issues - issues so dramatically different that when I pointed them out, you replied "d'uh". It would help if you remembered the "d'uh" factor in your own posts.

[_The Dude]

Please explain the contradiction between Dawkins' concern and his world view. You claim he is irrational for holding these two beliefs.

What is problematic for Dawkins isn't the mere fact that he is concerned. He is free to feel however he wants to feel. The problem is that he uses Kurt Wise as an example of why one is justified (why one ought to) oppose religion. This is what is contradictory to his particular atheistic belief. As for why, Beckwith already detailed the argument. I don't see why repeating it again will gain any ground.

Then I stand by my very first post in this thread (post #2). Dawkins is irrational only if one accepts Beckwith's sophistry.

[_guy sajer]

Then I stand by my very first post in this thread (post #2). Dawkins is irrational only if one accepts Beckwith's sophistry.

A pithier way of making the point I made a few posts above.